Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Proof: author of #1 paper showing no link between vaccines and autism is corrupt
I offered Professor Anders Hviid $25,000 if he would defend his autism study and supply us with the underlying data he used so we can validate it. He refused! What is he so afraid of? The truth?
At the suggestion of anti-anti-vaxxer David Gorski, I threw down the gauntlet and challenged Professor Anders Hviid, one of the key authors of the most important study that falsely claims that there is no link between vaccines and autism, to supply the underlying data and debate a group of scientists who disagree with his paper. I even offered him a $25,000 prize if he could defend his study. A mutually agreeable neutral panel would judge the discussion.
He ignored my offer and asked his followers on Twitter how to block me.
This is not how an honest scientist would react. I’ve listed some very uncomfortable questions below that he simply cannot answer in writing or in a live discussion. So he can’t make the silly excuse that debates must be in writing. Certainly Yale Professor Jason Abaluck debated us on video when challenged his study. No problem for him. Is Professor Hviid any more special than Professor Abaluck? Nope. No chance.
Real scientists don’t run for cover when their work is challenged by credible scientists. They defend their studies like Professor Abaluck did. I commend him for that.
I pointed out that the data they used in their study was flawed. Any honest scientist would say “Thank you! We will retract our paper.” Anders did the opposite. He ignored me and asked how to block me. Only someone who is corrupt would do that.
So now, here is the evidence for the world to see. Honest scientists do not behave this way when shown they are wrong.
Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism.
Professor Anders Hviid and his colleagues published a paper A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism (Madsen, 2002) in NEJM. This paper has been widely cited by others (over 1,000 other papers) as strong evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism.
He also later published this 2019 study: Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study which claims that, if anything, vaccination with MMR reduces your risk of autism by 7%. The 95% confidence interval was a 15% reduction to a negligible increase (2%). In short, it concluded that if anything, the MMR vaccine reduces a child’s risk of autism.
Hviid and his colleagues chose a study design that was designed to look credible but obscure any signal. So when they found no signal they could claim victory, that there was “no association.” They will not supply the underlying data to anyone for either study. So we have to trust them completely on what they say because we aren’t allowed to see the data and analyze it. Get it?
But the real meaning of what they found is that “the study design we choose is unable to find a signal.” That can mean:
The study methodology was inappropriate to find a signal
The data was corrupted
There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal
They chose a data analysis method that can be used to hide the signal
There is no signal
In Hviid’s case, the first four were true.
When I asked Harvard Professor of Epidemiology Martin Kulldorff why he thinks vaccines don’t cause autism, this is the paper he cites because it is “gold standard data.”
Nope. No sir. It was proven the data was unreliable.
This key paper, that is relied on by over 1,000 other papers, is deeply flawed because:
they never looked at the best metrics designed to find a signal
because the underlying data was later found to be inaccurate
because it overstates his conclusion. The study didn’t prove there is no link. It just proved that the methodology he used to try to find a signal was flawed as noted in the Letters section of his article. In short, the paper shows that the authors didn’t find a signal. They didn’t find a signal because 1) they didn’t look for the most obvious way to find the signal, 2) the data was flawed, and 3) the methods they did use were not sensitive enough
There were confounding factors such as a change in reporting requirements that obscured a signal
The conflicts of interest were never disclosed
In short, just because you didn’t find a signal doesn’t mean there is no signal. It just means you couldn’t find one. Get it?
I had some questions but Hviid wouldn’t answer any of them
Professor Hviid refuses to show us the underlying data or defend his study. Even after I offered him a $25,000 incentive to do so.
I wanted to ask Professor Hviid some questions about his study such as:
Why did you block me after I asked to see the data?
Why won’t you let anyone see the data for all your studies? Could it be that you are hiding something? Who has seen and analyzed the data who is on the opposite side of the narrative who is trustable?
Wouldn’t this paper showing the underlying data you used is flawed invalidate your results? If not, why not? Why didn’t you retract your study when you learned this? Have you ever publicly acknowledged this anywhere? Why not? Have you gone back to validate your data by contacting the study participants? If not, why not? Can you even show me a single example of scientific integrity where when someone showed your data is flawed you acknowledged the mistake?
From the DeStefano paper, we know there is huge risk of autism after the MMR shot for black children. Yet your study didn’t look at the race subgroup at all. Why not? So if the CDC is looking for an analysis to apply to the US, shouldn’t they immediately criticize your paper on this? Has anyone in the world besides me even noticed this? Or does everyone all just look the other way and say nothing? Who else noticed there was no race analysis except me?
In the raw data, there was a 1.45 RR of autism in the raw data in the vaccinated group. How come you didn’t point that out. What was the single major confounder here causing this “anomaly.” Shouldn’t we be very concerned that the raw data shows a statistically significant (p=.01) signal before declaring victory that vaccines don’t case autism with the statement: “This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.” It seems like it provides strong evidence that using statistical “adjustment techniques” and completely ignoring race data that you can make a HIGHLY statistically significant signal completely reverse direction into a new result that is NOT statistically significant
It’s odd that the CDC is funding a study in Denmark where the MMR schedule is not the same a the CDC recommended schedule for the MMR. Isn’t it amazing that nobody who cites this paper notices that very critical difference?
Why didn’t you look at autism diagnoses relative to the time of MMR vaccination in your study? This would be the most sensitive measure. I found that diagnoses in the 30 days after MMR vaccination is much greater than the 30 day before vaccination. What did you find when you looked at that? Is that why you are hiding the data from me so I couldn’t analyze that? How come the CDC never looked into VSD to ask that question? Did you ever realize that this information would not be in any national database nor would it be in the EMR records? You have to go directly to the parents to get this, ideally in a prospective study so you can survey the parents right when the change is noticed. That would be the definitive way to do it.
How can you explain this 1998 paper in Pediatrics that shows a very clear link between vaccines and ASD? How can brain injury be vaccine dependent? How can there be a spike at 8/9 days after the measles vaccine only? How do you explain why that is statistically significant and no spike for the mumps and rubella vaccine? Why does the pertussis vaccine have a shorter time to symptoms (less than 7 days)? Doesn’t the fact that different vaccines (even though given at the same ages) have a dramatically different side effect profile mean the vaccines cause brain injury? If not, what is the more likely explanation?
Why didn't you and your co-authors reveal your clear conflicts of interest?
Why didn't they talk in the paper about the changing of the autism reporting rules in Denmark.
Why would the CDC go to Denmark to do an autism study? They have 100% reported data in Medicare and VSD. Plus, the black male population would be very under-represented in any Denmark study.
Why did you ignore my request to supply the underlying data? An honest researcher would supply the data.
Who else validated the data after the paper came out?
Why was this method really the best way to detect causality? Why not look at the time the parent first noticed the autism relative to the nearest date of vaccination? If vaccination is not causal, this will be a flat line.
Why did you seek to block me when I started asking questions about your paper? Is that what someone with nothing to hide does?
Can you comment on this presentation regarding the conflicts of interest?
I gave you an opportunity to comment on this article and provide corrections before I published it. Did you find anything wrong? If so, why didn’t you say anything?
Shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that one of the co-authors, Poul Thorsen, M.D, is wanted by the US DOJ for fraud? He’s on the MOST WANTED list. And how is it that they can’t extradite him? I have a lot of questions I’d like to ask about how much you knew about this and what role he played in the research and why he’s on the MOST WANTED list.
Why would the CDC do this? They have VSD and Medicaid data. Why go offshore? Why not just publish the VSD and Medicaid data? Why not just give Brian Hooker access to VSD and have him fail to find a signal? Easy. Fast. No paper required.
I’d like to address each and every one of the points in Turtles All the way Down pages 162-167, especially the part about the raw data in Table 2 showing there is an effect and then, after magical “adjustments” that are never explained, the signal goes away. Based on the raw numbers, the rate of autism was 45% higher in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group, but the paper didn’t mention that at all which is unethical since the adjustments reversed out what the raw data said. You said there was “strong evidence.” It feels like you use the mysterious adjustments to make the signal go away. Also, there were so few cases, why didn’t you verify with the HCP every single case?
In short, his paper isn’t trustable and he’s acting in an evasive manner by refusing to supply the data or answer any questions about his paper.
Here’s the challenge I posted on Twitter:
If he’s telling the truth, he has nothing to lose and he’d be famous for showing the world that I’m wrong about vaccines causing autism and he’d pocket a cool $25,000 for a few hours of his time. Who wouldn’t turn that down? You’d have to have something to hide to turn it down.
How did he react to my challenge? By asking his followers how to block me! Check this out:
Since Anders refuses to supply the underlying data for his paper, refuses to answer any questions about his paper, and cannot explain what is wrong with the other papers, he loses the challenge.
He has literally thrown in the towel and admitted defeat.
After I told him about my article and asked for his feedback, what he did is to try to cover the evidence by making it impossible for anyone to verify what he had posted
Check this out. This happened right after I sent him my article for his review.
Is this what honest scientists do when they are challenged? Hide the evidence from public view? Nope.
Naturally, I hit “follow” to get access to his tweets. Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Who else has debunked this paper?
Turtles all the way down has a section devoted to this paper.
Mark Blaxill also wrote a critique.
My list is likely not exhaustive.
How bad is the study that over 1,000 papers are relying on? REALLY bad.
It failed all 7 elements of a sound hypothesis:
I tried to get any autism expert to defend the statement that “vaccines don’t cause autism”
No luck. People wanted to, I asked them to DM me, none did.
The emails I sent him
He didn’t respond to any of the emails I sent him.
I thought you’d might enjoy reading them:
I am a journalist in California. My friend Professor Martin Kulldorff speaks very highly of your work.
But I believe there is a very good chance that the truth may be the opposite of what you present in your study.
While we could debate this in the academic literature, if we did that it would take 10 years, and I think it’s important we resolve this question ASAP. Don’t you agree?
Plus, we are not allowed to ask questions of the authors in papers.
Therefore, in the interests of getting to the truth ASAP, please see this offer:
and this offer:
This is an opportunity for your research team to share an extra $50,000 in research funds which I’m sure you’ll put to good use.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Please respond to all via email and ALSO DM me on twitter (@stkirsch).
Also, can you tell me where I can download the record level data backing each study (the main autism study and the COVID safety study). We’d like to look at it.
There were many more emails. I won’t bore you. This guy is not an honest scientist.
For further reading
You can contact John Stone who writes Age of Autism who has a lot more info on Anders.
I was sent so much information on these guys I could spend the next month or two writing about it.
An opportunity for you to take action
If you’d like to write to Professor Hviid to let him know what you think, here is his contact info.
Also, I hear he’s looking for a big rock to hide under so if you have any suggestions, you can include that as well.
If you want to be creative, you could ship him a big rock with instructions on how to hide under it.
Professor Anders Hviid, a key author of what is arguably the most cited paper claiming vaccines don’t cause autism, has refused to defend his work, answer any of my questions, or supply me with the underlying data used in his study.
He knows if he did any of this, he would be discredited.
His paper is wrong and should be retracted. The underlying data is flawed and he has refused to acknowledge that. He never even did the subgroup analysis looking for the odds of an autism diagnosis 14 days before the shot vs. 14 days after the shot.
He has conflicts of interest that were not disclosed in his paper.
When a scientist runs away from legitimate questions and data requests like this, it generally means only one thing: the study is deeply flawed.
Is there any credible scientist who will defend this deeply flawed study? I think not.
So maybe it is time for the over 1,000 papers who relied on this flawed paper to note that in their studies? And maybe it’s time for some brave scientists to finally acknowledge the truth that vaccines can cause autism?
For every day we delay, another 1,000 kids will develop autism from vaccines. They should all be stopped. Now. Our kids will be healthier. We have a large medical practice over 25 years of health records comparing unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated kids that proves this. There are simply too many studies that were done by honest brokers with no agenda that confirm the dangers of vaccination.
In fact, a simple twitter poll can tell people in seconds that vaccines cause autism. Try this on your own account and see what happens. You’ll always get the first result until the anti-anti-vaxxers attack your poll. Try it and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.
I will be coming out soon with an article summarizing the key evidence showing the vaccines cause autism. Professor Hviid can simply explain how the observations are consistent with his conclusion. That will be most entertaining!